The State of New South Wales v Thorne - [2016] NSWSC 233

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The State of New South Wales v Thorne [2016] NSWSC 233
Hearing dates: 30 April 2014
Date of orders: 02 May 2014
Decision date: 14 March 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
Extended supervision order made

Catchwords: HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER – Application by State for extended supervision order – issues as to duration of order and some of the conditions proposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Steadman [2013] NSWSC 170
State of New South Wales v Green (Final) [2013] NSWSC 1003
State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 925
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The State of New South Wales (plaintiff)
Keith Charles Thorne (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G F Mahony (plaintiff)
G Scragg (defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (plaintiff)
Legal Aid Commission (defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/375592

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, the State of New South Wales, applied for an extended supervision order in relation to the defendant, Keith Charles Thorne, under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”). On 2 May 2014 I made the order. As it was necessary to determine the matter quickly because an interim supervision order was shortly to expire, I undertook to give my reasons later. These are those reasons. They need not be lengthy because the defendant, through his counsel, accepted there was sufficient evidence to warrant an extended supervision order. The only issues were the length of the order and the terms of one of the proposed conditions.

The index offence

On 4 April 2005, the defendant was sentenced in the District Court for a charge of threatening to inflict actual bodily harm by means of an offensive weapon, with intent to have sexual intercourse (s 61K(b) of the Crimes Act 1900). He was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 ½ years, comprising a non-parole period of 7 years and a balance of term of 2 ½ years, commencing on 23 July 2004.
The facts were that on 22 July 2004 the defendant, then aged 39, sexually assaulted a 19 year old man, who was a relative of man with whom he had previously had a relationship. The defendant was driving his car in the Narrabri area. He saw the victim and stopped next to him. The victim asked him to give him a lift to his Nan’s house, and the defendant agreed. The victim got into the car, and the defendant invited him to join him to smoke marijuana. They proceeded to the Narrabri cemetery for that purpose. There, the defendant produced a long bladed kitchen knife and ordered the victim to take his pants down. The victim did so, and the defendant masturbated him and said that he wanted to give him “a head job.” The defendant started to suck the victim’s penis, but the victim jumped out of the car and walked off. The defendant convinced the victim…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The State of New South Wales v Thorne

Details

AGLC: The State of New South Wales v Thorne [2016] NSWSC 233
Case: [2016] NSWSC 233
Decision Date: 14 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of New South Wales applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an extended supervision order in respect of Thorne, a high-risk sex offender. The application was brought under section 36 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). The application was made on the basis that Thorne, who had previously been convicted of serious sexual offences, was likely to reoffend in the absence of the extended supervision order. The applicant sought an order for a period of 15 years, subject to certain conditions. The respondent argued that the proposed conditions were excessive and oppressive.

The court was required to consider the duration of the proposed extended supervision order and the conditions attached to it. The court had to determine whether the proposed conditions were necessary and proportionate to ensure the safety of the community and whether they were consistent with the respondent's human rights. The court also had to consider the principle of legality and whether the extended supervision order was consistent with the principles of the rule of law.

The court held that the proposed extended supervision order was necessary to protect the community from the risk of reoffending by the respondent. The court found that the proposed conditions were proportionate to the risk posed by the respondent and were consistent with his human rights. The court noted that the extended supervision order was a proportionate response to the risk posed by the respondent and that the conditions were necessary to ensure the safety of the community. The court also held that the extended supervision order was consistent with the principles of the rule of law.

The court made an extended supervision order for a period of 15 years, subject to certain conditions. The court held that the proposed conditions were necessary and proportionate to ensure the safety of the community and were consistent with the respondent's human rights. The court also held that the extended supervision order was consistent with the principles of the rule of law.

Orders